Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(KER) 8061
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
A. Muhamed Mustaque, SOPHY THOMAS, JJ
MATHEW.M – Appellant
Versus
CINIMOL AUGUSTINE.P – Respondent
Mat.Appeal 1067 2015
SRI.V.R.KESAVA KAIMAL, SMT.C.DEVIKA RANI KAIMAL, SRI.O.V.MANIPRASAD
The case emphasizes the principle of ownership based on financial contributions and the requirement of evidence to substantiate claims of property and entrusted items.
Headnote:
Family Law - Property Disputes - O.P No.619 of 2013, O.P No.119 of 2014 - The court determined ownership and entitlement issues regarding property and gold ornaments based on evidence of financial contributions and transfers, highlighting the principles of trust and fraudulent conveyance.
Fact of the Case:
The couple married in 2002, with the wife claiming to have entrusted gold ornaments to her mother-in-law which her husband misused. The wife contested property ownership, asserting she funded its purchase while the husband claimed it was his property.
Issues: Whether the wife established her ownership of the property and the value of the gold ornaments entrusted to her husband and mother-in-law.
Ratio Decidendi: The court upheld that the wife's financial contributions and absence of any valid defenses from the husband established her rightful ownership of the property, while it found the claims regarding gold ornaments lacking evidentiary support.
Final Decision: The appeals were partly allowed, confirming the wife's ownership of property while setting aside the monetary award for the gold.
J U D G M E N T
Sophy Thomas, J.
These appeals arise out of the common judgment dated
11.08.2015 in OP No.119 of 2014 and 619 of 2013 on the file of Family Court, Kannur.
2. Smt.Cinimol Augustine was married to Sri.Mathew M on
12.01.2002 at Marygiri Church. The wife was a Nurse working in Kuwait and the husband was a Civil Overseer in Pariyaram Medical College, as on the date of marriage. Subsequently, the husband was taken to Kuwait by the wife and they lived together as husband and wife. According to the wife, she was given 75 sovereigns of gold ornaments from her family at the time of marriage, and soon after the marriage, those ornaments were entrusted with her mother-in-law, and subsequently, it was misused by the husband. She was sending amounts regularly to the Bank Account opened by her in Kerala, as instructed by the husband, and she had entrusted money with the husband and his brother, for purchasing properties in her name. But, on breach of trust, the husband purchased property in his own name and subsequently, he gifted that property to his brother Mr.Joseph Mathew, so as to defeat her right. She had given amounts to the husband to meet the marriage expenses also, and she had also met the expenses for his visa to take him abroad. Later their relationship became strained, and in September 2012, the husband manhandled her and left her company. Since then they are living separate.
3. On 24.02.2012, the wife came to know that her husband had executed a gift deed with respect to the schedule property in favour of his brother. At that juncture, she filed O.P No.619 of 2013 against her husband and his brother, to declare her title, to declare the gift deed executed by her husband to his brother as null and void, and also for a mandatory injunction to reconvey that property into her name. She filed O.P No.119 of 2014 for recovery of money and gold ornaments.
4. In both cases, the respondents opposed the claim of the petitioner/wife. According to them, the schedule property was purchased by the husband expending his own money and so, the wife had no right, title or interest over that property. Since the brother of the husband expended considerable amount for purchasing that property, and as he was the one who took care of the education and other expenses of the husband, he executed a gift deed in favour of his brother. No gold ornaments were entrusted by the wife with the mother-in-law, and there was no occasion for the husband to misuse the same. He never received any amounts from the wife, though he is admitting that he was taken to Kuwait by his wife. According to him, he was employed in Kerala and he had sufficient amounts with him to meet the expenses for going to Kuwait.
5. O.P No.619 of 2013 and O.P No.119 of 2014 were tried together by the Family Court, treating O.P No.619 of 2013 as the leading case. PWs 1 to 3 were examined and Exts.A1 to A25 were marked from the side of the petitioner/wife. RWs 1 and 2 were examined and Exs.B1 to B4 were marked from the side of the respondent/husband. Exts.X1 to X3 were marked as witness exhibits.
6. On analysing the available facts and evidence, the learned Family Court allowed O.P No.619 of 2013, and partly allowed O.P No.119 of 2014, directing the respondent/husband to pay a sum of Rs.17,25,000/- as the value of 75 sovereigns of gold ornaments. All other prayers in that OP were turned down. The husband has come up with these appeals, challenging the common judgment in O.P No.119 of 2014 and O.P No.619 of 2013.
7. No appeal has been preferred by the wife against the judgment and decree in O.P No.119 of 2014, which was only partly allowed.
8. Now let us have a reappraisal of the available facts and evidence, to find out whether any interference is warranted in the impugned judgment and decree.
9. PW1-the wife deposed that, her husband persuaded her to purchase the schedule property for a total sale consideration of Rs.21 lakh. Though she was not amenable initially, later she inspected t
